Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    February 15, 2010 at 3:58 am

    ORIGINAL: Thor

    Yes, I must trust a source with articles such as

    [link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-cent-women.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251040/Rape-Its-fault-victims-say-50-cent-women.html[/link]

    and a whole column of femail tabloid stories on the left column.

    You would do better to quote US Weekly

    Sounds like you have bought the human caused global warming story and are a true believer, with an emotional need to believe it. Open your mind.

    Here is some more data:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
    (the times of london – does that pass muster with you??)

    The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change, said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

    The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

    These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.
    Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

    The story is the same for each one, he said. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.

    ….
    Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

    In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.

    Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Millss findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

    on the other hand

    Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

    Its not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming, he said. We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.

    The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

    Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.

    [b]another item[/b]

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece

    The head of the UNs climate change body is under pressure to resign after one of his strongest allies in the environmental movement said his judgment was flawed and called for a new leader to restore confidence in climatic science.

    Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has insisted that he will remain in post for another four years despite having failed to act on a serious error in the bodys 2007 report.

    John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK , said that Dr Pachauri should have acted as soon as he had been informed of the error, even though issuing a correction would have embarrassed the IPCC on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit.
    A journalist working for Science had told Dr Pachauri several times late last year that glaciologists had refuted the IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Dr Pachauri refused to address the problem, saying: I dont have anything to add on glaciers. He suggested that the error would not be corrected until 2013 or 2014, when the IPCC next reported.

    So greenpeace is after this guy too. He has no credibility left. Doesn’t even have the cajones to say he was wrong.

    and this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/08/case-for-climate-change-science

    The apparent abuse of the peer review process is perhaps the most worrying aspect because it is meant to be the gold standard that allows us to distinguish credible science from pseudoscience.

    It is hard to see how Phil Jones, the director of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and some of his colleagues will escape censure for the behaviour Pearce exposed. [b]But it is also worth pointing out what neither he nor any other journalist has so far found: any evidence of scientists fiddling their results, or indeed anything that calls into question the scientific case that man is causing dangerous climate change.[/b]

    Given that, some, particularly in the climate science community, have wondered why the Guardian devoted so much energy and space to excavating the affair. Myles Allen, a distinguished Oxford physicist, suggested on these pages that the Guardian was “hoping against hope to turn up a genuine error which fundamentally alters conclusions”. The truth couldn’t be further away, but only by looking thoroughly under every rock can those of us pressing for action on climate change maintain with confidence that the scientific case remains sound.

    Which brings us to the dismal case of the IPCC and the Himalayan glaciers. Many scientists are still bemused at how the expert panel could have made quite such an eye-watering howler: the prediction that the glaciers would melt by 2035 was not just wrong but wrong by a factor of 10. One scientist tells me that glaciologists had spotted the error and notified the IPCC about it as early as last September, but no effort was made to correct it.

    With all this, I can’t see how it is possible to believe either side. Each is corrupted with non-scientific wishes (to control industry, to allow industry to proceed without interference). Everything you and I read is tainted with these biases. Unless we read the original research, or even more accurately, unless I DO the research myself so that I can trust it, everything we read is derivative. First the researchers (who have a stake in this) and then the press (who has a talent for tilting the reports). After the rape of the scientific method by those at East Anglia, certainly they have no credibility at all.

    It’s interesting, as I write this, I recall judging some junior high science fairs. The kids were well schooled in the Hypothesis-test-conclusion pattern in the scientific method. If something didn’t work, hey, they said so. I went back to work at the University and contrasted what I saw there to the academic games I saw every day directed toward getting something, anything published, and wondered what had happened to people in the 20-30 years between.

    We might be better to turn all of this over to junior high school students.